Cell phones lower sperm count?

[Vitnir]

Stumpy, I believe Vitner meant 'smoking causes cancer'.

Good, someone reads my posts.

Do I remember it correctly if UK authorities has recommended parents not to let children use mobile phones?

Since epidemiological studies hasn't yet produced strong evidence for health risks the conclusion you can make is that if there is a health risk it is likely small. Going out in the sunshine will heat up your brain more than a phone will if you ask me.

And to address the original post, this study on rats doesn't indicate that RF radiation has an effect on reproduction. (Hm but measuring the rectal temperature on rats, how gross can you get?)

 

[Stumpy]

The proof for smoking causing cancer can be found where please?

 

[Vitnir]

Since you said please, Link
Full text should be available online for anyone.

Maybe you in return can substantiate your bizzare claim that epidemiology is useless with some other argument than "Because I say so"
Your references so far may or may not support you in a few isolated cases but on the whole? No

 

[Stumpy]

Originally posted by Vitnir Since you said please, Link
Full text should be available online for anyone.

The article asserts it, but gives no info how this has been established...a case of the missing mechanism. There is certainly a high correlation between active smoking and lung cancer, but once again I have to say: correlation is NOT causation.

Maybe you in return can substantiate your bizzare claim that epidemiology is useless with some other argument than "Because I say so"
Your references so far may or may not support you in a few isolated cases but on the whole? No

I haven't said that epidemiology is useless. The study into the association between active smoking and lung cancer by Sir Austin Bradford-Hill seems to me, to be the benchmark. His criteria for assessing evidence, long regarded as the standard has now been watered down to the point of being ignored by junk scientists eager for a quick headline.

 

[Vitnir]

His criteria for assessing evidence, long regarded as the standard has now been watered down to the point of being ignored by junk scientists eager for a quick headline.

Its not a problem isolated to epidemiology, its a political problem and its called "publish or die". If you don't publish you don't get funding and when you apply for positions the number of publications might be more important than whats in them. Junk scientist doesn't get funding eventually since the people with the money doesn't rely on tabloids for information.